RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02040

				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The 16th AF Intel Officer of the Year 1990 award comments contained in his 19 Jun 92 Training Report (TR) be removed and added to his 4 Mar 91 Officer Performance Report (OPR), and he receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of major for the Calendar Year (CY) 95A (5 Jun 95) central major selection board, and the CY 99B (30 Nov 99), and CY00A (28 Nov 00) central lieutenant colonel selection boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested 4 Mar 91 OPR is incomplete and does not accurately portray his true record of performance or potential.  The applicant states that absence of the award on the OPR along with the absence of rater comments regarding his overall performance ranking as compared to peers, is unjust and unfair.  During the earlier Air Force appeals, he received only partial approval; award erroneously entered on Jun 92 training report, corrected rater comments disallowed on Mar 91 OPR.  According to new evidence, the award should be correctly reflected with corrected rater comments on the Mar 91 OPR.  In support of the appeal, applicant submits letters from his previous raters at the time the OPR was written explaining the error and recommending corrective action.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of major, with a date of rank of 1 Sep 96.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of major by the CY95A Selection Board.  He was selected for promotion to the grade of major by the CY96A Central Selection Board.  He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel Below-the-Zone (BPZ) by the 99B Central Board and In-the-Promotion Zone (IPZ) by the 00A Central Board.

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 1 Dec 97.  The Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) partially approved the applicant’s initial request on 8 Mar 96.  The ERAB directed the award be placed in the 19 Jun 92 TR. The applicant filed a second appeal requesting the award be removed from the 19 Jun 92 TR and placed on the 4 Mar 91 OPR.  The appeal was returned without action because the applicant did not provide all previous appeal documents.  The ERAB was unable to obtain a copy because the case file was destroyed in 1999. 

Applicant’s OPR profile since 1990, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

			 4 Mar 90		Meets Standards (MS)
			10 Aug 90		Training Report (TR)
		*	 4 Mar 91				MS
		*	19 Jun 92		Training Report (TR)
			19 Jun 93				MS
			17 Jan 94				MS
		**	15 Aug 94				MS
			15 Jul 95				MS
			 4 Dec 95				MS
		  	 4 Dec 96				MS
			17 Jul 97				MS
			 7 Aug 98				MS
		 ***	 7 Aug 99				MS
		 ****	 2 Aug 00				MS
			 6 Jun 01				MS
			
*    Contested Reports
**   Top report on file at time of CY95A Maj selection board.
***  Top report on file at time of CY99B Lt Col selection board
	   (BPZ).
**** Top report on file at time of CY00A Lt Col selection board.
	 (IPZ)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial.  The memorandum from HQ AFPC/DPPPAE (ERAB) states, “Addition of the Intelligence award to the Mar 91 report is inappropriate since the award was clearly announced “after” the report’s close date; its proper placement, with the evaluator,s concurrence, would be in the 19 Jun 92 training report.  

The applicant provided memorandums from the rater and additional rater stating the command announced the award in early January 1991.  However, the applicant did not provide the official notification date to substantiate when the award was announced or an explanation from the evaluators stating why it was not originally included on the OPR.

In addition, the proposed comments also include stratification, Professional Military Education (PME), and job recommendations.  The evaluators do not explain why these comments were not on the original OPR.  Many OPRs can be rewritten to provide stratification or to be made stronger; however, the time to do this is before the evaluation becomes a matter of record.  Willingness by evaluators to change a report is not a valid reason unless there is clear evidence of error or injustice.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO states that based on the evidence provided, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

The application is untimely.  The applicant has one nonselection to the grade of major by the P0495A central selection board and one nonselection to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the P0500A central selection board.  They concur with the findings in the HQ AFPC/DPPPE advisory, and have nothing further to add.  Since that advisory recommends denial, SSB consideration is not warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and provided a response with attachments, which is attached as Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded the applicant should be considered for promotion by SSB for the CY95A, central major selection board nor the CY99B (below-the-zone), and CY00A central lieutenant colonel selection boards with the requested change to his record.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force  evaluations.  We note the award was on the 1992 Training Report, therefore, we are persuaded the selection board was aware of the award.  The applicant has not demonstrated that the ommission of the award, from the 4 Mar 91 OPR was the basis for his nonselection for promotion.  We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above, and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 1 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 12 Jul 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 30 Aug 01.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 30 Aug 01.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Sep 01.
	Exhibit F.	Applicant's response, dated 9 Oct 01.